Will the Developers support main-chain scaling as a guiding principle?

[solex]

The Developers have written an open letter to the community about Bitcoin scalability.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1168393.0

They have done a lot of work and describe it here:

Much work has already been done in this area, from substantial improvements in CPU bottlenecks, memory usage, network efficiency, and initial block download times, to algorithmic scaling in general. However, a number of key challenges still remain, each with many significant considerations and tradeoffs to evaluate. We have worked on Bitcoin scaling for years while safeguarding the network’s core features of decentralization, security, and permissionless innovation. We’re committed to ensuring the largest possible number of users benefit from Bitcoin, without eroding these fundamental values.

However, the real question for them is: Will they make a commitment to the principle of main-chain scaling?

Will they support volume handling on the main-chain as a preference to off-chain solutions?

1). Bitcoin should be scaled so that transactions are handled on its main-chain, as a first and guiding principle.

2). Bitcoin's main-chain capacity should be allowed to scale at a rate broadly in line with the general improvement in global computing technology.

How hard is it for them to publicly support 1&2 above? Unless they don't agree....?

[1715404335]

1715404335

[1715404335]

1715404335

[1715404335]

1715404335

[Za1n]

Did you just quit reading at the part you quoted above?

They also went on to say:

There will be controversy from time to time, but Bitcoin is a security-critical system with billions of dollars of users’ assets that a mistake could compromise. To mitigate potential existential risks, it behooves us all to take the time to evaluate proposals that have been put forward and agree on the best solutions via the consensus-building process.

In the upcoming months, two open workshops will bring the community together to explore these issues. The first Scaling Bitcoin workshop will be in Montreal on September 12-13. The second workshop is planned for December 6-7 and will be hosted in Hong Kong to be more inclusive of Bitcoin’s global user base.

We ask the community to not prejudge and instead work collaboratively to reach the best outcome through the existing process and the supporting workshops. It’s great to already see broad excitement for the event and the high concentration of technical participants attending.

We’re confident that by working together we can agree on the best course of action. We believe this is the way forward and reinforces the existing review process that has served the Bitcoin development community (and Bitcoin in general) well to date.

We welcome your participation as we continue our efforts to bring Bitcoin into the future.

Notice the part about "The first Scaling Bitcoin workshop will be in Montreal on September 12-13."

To me it sounds like the workshop would be the perfect place to discuss the concerns you have, so I am not sure where this "obvious omission" you state comes from.

[brg444]

The Developers have written an open letter to the community about Bitcoin scalability.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1168393.0

They have done a lot of work and describe it here:

Much work has already been done in this area, from substantial improvements in CPU bottlenecks, memory usage, network efficiency, and initial block download times, to algorithmic scaling in general. However, a number of key challenges still remain, each with many significant considerations and tradeoffs to evaluate. We have worked on Bitcoin scaling for years while safeguarding the network’s core features of decentralization, security, and permissionless innovation. We’re committed to ensuring the largest possible number of users benefit from Bitcoin, without eroding these fundamental values.

However, the real question for them is: Will they make a commitment to the principle of main-chain scaling?

Will they support volume handling on the main-chain as a preference to off-chain solutions?

1). Bitcoin should be scaled so that transactions are handled on its main-chain, as a first and guiding principle.

2). Bitcoin's main-chain capacity should be allowed to scale at a rate broadly in line with the general improvement in global computing technology.

How hard is it for them to publicly support 1&2 above? Unless they don't agree....?

Bitcoin is based on notions of scarcity. Making room for every transactions in the world makes it worthless.

[GermanGiant]

2). Bitcoin's main-chain capacity should be allowed to scale at a rate broadly in line with the general improvement in global computing technology.

No one can predict the rate of improvement in global computing technology for coming 10 years. This point can not be agreed upon.

[Klestin]

Bitcoin is based on notions of scarcity. Making room for every transactions in the world makes it worthless.

I agree. Once I found out that there were millions of miles of open roads in the world, I threw out my Ferrari.

[jonald_fyookball]

The Developers have written an open letter to the community about Bitcoin scalability.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1168393.0

They have done a lot of work and describe it here:

Much work has already been done in this area, from substantial improvements in CPU bottlenecks, memory usage, network efficiency, and initial block download times, to algorithmic scaling in general. However, a number of key challenges still remain, each with many significant considerations and tradeoffs to evaluate. We have worked on Bitcoin scaling for years while safeguarding the network’s core features of decentralization, security, and permissionless innovation. We’re committed to ensuring the largest possible number of users benefit from Bitcoin, without eroding these fundamental values.

However, the real question for them is: Will they make a commitment to the principle of main-chain scaling?

Will they support volume handling on the main-chain as a preference to off-chain solutions?

1). Bitcoin should be scaled so that transactions are handled on its main-chain, as a first and guiding principle.

2). Bitcoin's main-chain capacity should be allowed to scale at a rate broadly in line with the general improvement in global computing technology.

How hard is it for them to publicly support 1&2 above? Unless they don't agree....?

An excellent question and I would bet they don't agree, based on their attitudes thus far and the fact that Blockstream's business activities appears to be related to off chain solutions, which is probably why they will not publicly support it.

@brg444 you are close to being on my ignore list because of your ongoing idiocy.  Free transactions only affects the security model, it doesn't make the currency worthless.  Either you're stupid or trolling.

[nicked]

The Developers have written an open letter to the community about Bitcoin scalability.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1168393.0

They have done a lot of work and describe it here:

Much work has already been done in this area, from substantial improvements in CPU bottlenecks, memory usage, network efficiency, and initial block download times, to algorithmic scaling in general. However, a number of key challenges still remain, each with many significant considerations and tradeoffs to evaluate. We have worked on Bitcoin scaling for years while safeguarding the network’s core features of decentralization, security, and permissionless innovation. We’re committed to ensuring the largest possible number of users benefit from Bitcoin, without eroding these fundamental values.

However, the real question for them is: Will they make a commitment to the principle of main-chain scaling?

Will they support volume handling on the main-chain as a preference to off-chain solutions?

1). Bitcoin should be scaled so that transactions are handled on its main-chain, as a first and guiding principle.

2). Bitcoin's main-chain capacity should be allowed to scale at a rate broadly in line with the general improvement in global computing technology.

How hard is it for them to publicly support 1&2 above? Unless they don't agree....?

Bitcoin is based on notions of scarcity. Making room for every transactions in the world makes it worthless.

Scarcity of coins not, scarcity of transactions!

[solex]

Bitcoin is based on notions of scarcity. Making room for every transactions in the world makes it worthless.

I agree. Once I found out that there were millions of miles of open roads in the world, I threw out my Ferrari.

Me too, but I can't even walk the pavements now because there are so many miles of pavements which are not cram-packed with people.

[jonald_fyookball]

Solex,

can you expand on why main chain is so important?

Does off chain imply certain limitations?

[knight22]

The Developers have written an open letter to the community about Bitcoin scalability.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1168393.0

They have done a lot of work and describe it here:

Much work has already been done in this area, from substantial improvements in CPU bottlenecks, memory usage, network efficiency, and initial block download times, to algorithmic scaling in general. However, a number of key challenges still remain, each with many significant considerations and tradeoffs to evaluate. We have worked on Bitcoin scaling for years while safeguarding the network’s core features of decentralization, security, and permissionless innovation. We’re committed to ensuring the largest possible number of users benefit from Bitcoin, without eroding these fundamental values.

However, the real question for them is: Will they make a commitment to the principle of main-chain scaling?

Will they support volume handling on the main-chain as a preference to off-chain solutions?

1). Bitcoin should be scaled so that transactions are handled on its main-chain, as a first and guiding principle.

2). Bitcoin's main-chain capacity should be allowed to scale at a rate broadly in line with the general improvement in global computing technology.

How hard is it for them to publicly support 1&2 above? Unless they don't agree....?

Bitcoin is based on notions of scarcity. Making room for every transactions in the world makes it worthless.

My eyes bleed. Maybe we should also have scarce nodes while we're at it?

[tadakaluri]

"To mitigate potential existential risks, it behooves us all to take the time to evaluate proposals that have been put forward and agree on the best solutions via the consensus-building process."

"We're committed to ensuring the largest possible number of users benefit from bitcoin, without eroding these fundamental values."

According to the letter, bitcoin is a security-critical system with billions of dollars of users' assets that a mistake could compromise.

[S4VV4S]

"To mitigate potential existential risks, it behooves us all to take the time to evaluate proposals that have been put forward and agree on the best solutions via the consensus-building process."

"We're committed to ensuring the largest possible number of users benefit from bitcoin, without eroding these fundamental values."

According to the letter, bitcoin is a security-critical system with billions of dollars of users' assets that a mistake could compromise.

That is true.
One cannot argue with that.
We have seen what "bad news" does many times so I can imagine what a mistake could do.

[Denker]

The Developers have written an open letter to the community about Bitcoin scalability.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1168393.0

They have done a lot of work and describe it here:

Much work has already been done in this area, from substantial improvements in CPU bottlenecks, memory usage, network efficiency, and initial block download times, to algorithmic scaling in general. However, a number of key challenges still remain, each with many significant considerations and tradeoffs to evaluate. We have worked on Bitcoin scaling for years while safeguarding the network’s core features of decentralization, security, and permissionless innovation. We’re committed to ensuring the largest possible number of users benefit from Bitcoin, without eroding these fundamental values.

However, the real question for them is: Will they make a commitment to the principle of main-chain scaling?

Will they support volume handling on the main-chain as a preference to off-chain solutions?

1). Bitcoin should be scaled so that transactions are handled on its main-chain, as a first and guiding principle.

2). Bitcoin's main-chain capacity should be allowed to scale at a rate broadly in line with the general improvement in global computing technology.

How hard is it for them to publicly support 1&2 above? Unless they don't agree....?

Bitcoin is based on notions of scarcity. Making room for every transactions in the world makes it worthless.

Scarcity of coins not, scarcity of transactions!

Right.As long as final supply will stay at 21 million we can have as much transactions as possible.

[solex]

Solex,

can you expand on why main chain is so important?

Does off chain imply certain limitations?

Yes, indeed.
Main-chain is so important because this is the proven technology. Satoshi's PoW model has functioned extremely well for 6.5 years. This is why when we talk about scaling main-chain volume handling we are talking about extending the capabilites of what is known. And the quote from the Developers all refers to work which they have done to improve on Satoshi's original implemetation.

All other ideas are unknowns: Side-chains, Tree-chains, Lightning Network. None of them are going to have a 6.5 year proven real-world live-usage track record in the face of the world's most determined hackers and spammers until 2022 at the earliest.

LN is a great idea, I like it a lot, but basic questions exist like "How safe is its version of BTC addresses?" LN allows for several hops between sender and receiver. So if you are sending BTC to "Joe Bloggs" then how secure it, when some MITM attack may route your payment to "Joe Bloggz" in Russia instead?
LN will have a federated model with far fewer nodes. Does this mean it is more vulnerable to white-listing, black-listing or tracking?
Any other 3rd party solution will always have risks, just like leaving fiat in a bank or BTC on MtGox.

Side-chains have huge promise where fundamentals can be varied, 2-minute blocks?, no problem. But how guaranteed can it be that BTC on a side-chain might not get locked permanently when a side-chain has a catastrophic failure? SC are not even considered a true scaling option.

Tree-chains have been in draft for 2 or 3 years now. They need to be in the wild for 2 or 3 years to be a viable scaling option.

There is a long road until any of them can do better than using the existing blockchain.

Remember the recent meme in the mainstream about "Blockchain tech without Bitcoin"? Well how about a new dev meme "Bitcoin without the blockchain".
Is that any better?

The comment below captures the essence of my concern:

Shmullus_Zimmerman

Had to sign up for Reddit as a total newb (after lurking for years) just to post this:
Isn't the biggest concern in the 'Open Letter' (a) the fact the letter does NOT contain term "blockchain" when (b) combined with the the following language: " We’re committed to ensuring the largest possible number of users benefit from Bitcoin, without eroding these fundamental values."
What does that mean? The phrase "benefit from Bitcoin" does not convey a commitment for the maximum number of users to have access to the BLOCKCHAIN! They talk about "Bitcoin" as an amorphous concept. They talk about the "Bitcoin network" without mentioning the single-most crucial bedrock component, the block chain. The letter contains zero commitment to "scaling" involving the block chain itself.
I've dealt with lawyer-speak my entire adult career. I've seen what it looks like when folks with an agenda are trying carefully to dance around an 'elephant in the corner of the room.'
My Seat of the Pants Prediction: The workshops will turn out to focus to a troubling extent on off-chain solutions (which is to say: private for-profit enterprises building ecommerce banks off the blockchain). Implicit in off-chain solutions, so far as I can tell, will be a strong bias toward keeping the block size fixed so that you have to go to the off chain solution if you want something to occur fast. If things keep going this way, eventually talk will turn to limiting the blockchain to only transactions of "X or more" Bitcoin, with all smaller transactions kicked into the proprietary sidechains and clearing houses.
"Fast!" "Convenient!" "Backed by (but not on) the Block Chain!" I can just see it now.

[jonald_fyookball]

In addition to the robustness factor, I thought there was some concern that
if the transaction isn't on the main chain, it ceases to become an open , trustless
system and becomes more of a closed network.  I believe DeathandTaxes posted
about that in the thread "keeping the 1mb limit is a great idea..." thread.

What can you tell us about that?

[uxgpf]

Here's interesting comment from Gavin about scaling bitcoin:

People claiming that "Bitcoin Doesn't Scale" are theoretically correct: you still need O(n) bandwidth and CPU to fully validate n transactions-per-second.

Someday, when Bitcoin is the number 2 payment network in the world, we might have to start worrying about that. Here are a couple of back-of-the-envelope calculations that show that we should be able to scale up to n=15,000 transactions per second before running into that O(n) bandwidth limit.

For perspective, the number 1 payment network in the world today (Visa) handles about 212 million transactions per day; 2,500 transactions per second on average. Their peak processing capacity, needed on the busiest shopping days, is reported to be 40,000 tps.

My home Internet connection is getting about 90 megabits download bandwidth per second right now. An average Bitcoin transaction is about 2,000 bits, so my current consumer-level Internet connection could download 45,000 transactions per second, over ten times average Visa transaction volume.

While it is nice to know that I could run a full node handling more-than-Visa-scale transaction volume from my house, running a dedicated machine in a data center somewhere makes more sense. 15,000 250-byte transactions per second works out to about 7 terabytes of bandwidth per month. One of my hosting providers charges $20 per month for a virtual private server with 8 TB of bandwidth per month-- or $240 per year to handle MasterCard-level transaction volume today (August 2014).

https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/e20c3b5a1d4b97f79ac2

He obviously thinks that the blockchain should be inclusive. I don't know what's Core developers' or Wladimir's stance on the issue, they have been more ambivalent. Maybe they just don't have a clear consensus about the goals. (i.e. what Bitcoin is/should become.) Then they ought to say so publicly.

Is there a schism between "Blockchain is for everyone" vs "Blockchain is only for those who can pay high fees."? (It doesn't matter if reasons are purely technical or not) We don't even know that yet.

[Lauda]

Why would they? It looks like this isn't very clear to you. Bitcoin scales much more efficiently off chain, and that is a fact. Unless someone comes up with something that would work on the main chain much better than just raising the block size limit, then scaling off chain is right. However, I'm not saying that we should keep the limit on the main chain. It would be better if we used a combination of solution and implemented them. Bitcoin could handle a lot more traffic and we would not need to worry about this for quite some time.

[jonald_fyookball]

Why would they? It looks like this isn't very clear to you. Bitcoin scales much more efficiently off chain, and that is a fact. Unless someone comes up with something that would work on the main chain much better than just raising the block size limit, then scaling off chain is right. However, I'm not saying that we should keep the limit on the main chain. It would be better if we used a combination of solution and implemented them. Bitcoin could handle a lot more traffic and we would not need to worry about this for quite some time.

I agree with you.

Still, I think a lot of us "blockstream watchdogs" are concerned they will only look to scale offchain because its good for their business.

[CIYAM]

A big problem with Gavin's stuff about his home-grade internet is that it is rather superior than most of the developing world (about 10x at least). To make that clear I can't even run Bitcoin Core in China (it never catches up).

So if we only want Bitcoin to be for the "developed world" then I guess we should all just follow Gavin and Mike.

If we want Bitcoin to be for everyone then we actually need to think a bit harder.

It should be noted that Gavin and Mike tell us we need to decide this ASAP and this is not good. I am actually glad to see that XT is failing due to lack of support. There is no such big rush (all the "full blocks" have basically been due to spam attacks).

[jonald_fyookball]

A big problem with Gavin's stuff about his home-grade internet is that it is rather superior than most of the developing world (about 10x at least).

So if we only want Bitcoin to be for the "developed world" then I guess we should all just follow Gavin and Mike.

If we want Bitcoin to be for everyone then we actually need to think a bit harder.

Well, it would stand to reason that less developed places with slower internet would be using more SPV clients.